Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company arrived at the conclusion that their movies are good but that people are not aware of the good movies, so in order for the public to know about the good movies, more money should be spent on advertisement. This conclusion is based on some dubious assumptions such as how many movies are really good and are the reviewers, who rated the movies highly, credible? These questions need to be answered before the recommendation is put into action. My stance on this is that I disagree with the recommendation until the author answers these two questions.
First of all, how many movies received positive reviews by the reviewers? The author mentions that some specific movies received positive reviews greater than the preceding years. If out of ten movies, for example, the reviewers rated only two or three of them as good then the authors conclusion that fewer people attended the movies because of lack of knowledge about the existence of good movies falls apart. If the movies themselves are not good then why would anyone want to watch them? Spending more money on advertisement will only eat away the available resources which should be preserved for making good movies. So, before moving on with spending more money on advertisement, it should be made clear that how many movies were actually good.
Secondly, are these reviewers credible? In other words, are these reviewers famous enough that their words will be taken seriously? If the movie reviewers are not known by many then it does not matter how much they like or dislike any movie. The movie should be rated by those who are famous for doing so. Furthermore, the opinion of the public should also be taken into account to establish the decency of the movies. If the public likes the movie then the movie must be good. So, the author must also answer the question of the credibility of the reviewers before moving on with the recommendation.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is flawed because of lack of enough evidence and its dependent on some unanswered assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above mentioned questions then moving on with the recommended course of spending more money on advertisement is justified otherwise it will only be a waste of resources which will have a negative impact on the further projects.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1939 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.8 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.554 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.248 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 270, Rule ID: AS_ADJ_AS[1]
Message: Comparison is written "as good 'as'".
Suggestion: as
...rated only two or three of them as good then the authors conclusion that fewer peopl...
^^^^
Line 3, column 279, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y two or three of them as good then the authors conclusion that fewer people attended t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 420, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...to establish the decency of the movies. If the public likes the movie then the mov...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91089108911 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63651858927 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.465346534653 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3432192348 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.421052632 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2631578947 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.68421052632 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0853927077202 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0281387638357 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0312250326575 0.0701772020484 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0565753406089 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283728475227 0.0628817314937 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.49 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.